Rising demand in China and India will push coal past oil as the two Asian powerhouses will need to rely on the comparatively cheaper fuel to power their economies. Coal demand in the United States, Europe and the rest of Asia will hold steady.

Global coal consumption is expected to rise by 25 percent by the end of the decade to 4,500 million tonnes of oil equivalent, overtaking oil at 4,400 million tonnes, according to Woodmac in a presentation on Monday at the World Energy Congress.

China – already the top consumer – will drive two-thirds of the growth in global coal use this decade. Half of China’s power generation capacity to be built between 2012 and 2020 will be coal-fired, said Woodmac.

Power infrastructure provider Alstom estimated that across Asia close to half of the 600 gigawatt of new power generators to be built over the next five years will be coal-fired, Giles Dickson, a vice president at the company said.

“Coal prices are low,” he said, adding that coal is about one-third of the price of LNG in Asia and about half of the gas price in Europe.

Abundant supply is also supporting demand for coal. The traded volumes of coal will increase by a further 20 percent by 2020, Dickson said, including supply of lower grade coal from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa.

“As the lower grade coal comes into the market, further downward pressure on prices will further drive demand,” he said.

“If you take China and India out of the equation, what is more surprising is that under current regulations, coal demand in the rest of the world will remain at current levels,” Durbin said.

High fuel import costs and nuclear issues will support coal use throughout Northeast Asia, while in North America coal is still competitive in many locations despite abundant low-cost shale gas.

This will contribute to a doubling of the region’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to 2.3 gigatonnes by 2035, according to the IEA.

JC comments: With substantial efforts in the U.S. to move away from coal, this article reminds of the global energy dynamics and economics that are in play. I checked the spot price of carbon on the EU TS, and it is about 5 Euros. The political feasibility of a global carbon market with a carbon price of 40 Euros per ton is probably zero.

With that inconvenient truth, perhaps it is time to start looking at the climate-energy nexus in a different way:

a broad range of scenarios of future climate that consider not only greenhouse emission scenarios but also natural internal variability and changes in natural forcing to support better assessments of energy demand and supply

assess regional benefits as well as dangers associated with the varying scenarios of future climate

Focussing our scientific and policy efforts on climate model simulations that are able only to predict (at best) the response to increasing greenhouse gases and carbon mitigation policies are strategies with diminishing returns and likelihoods.

WIth regards to climate science, I am arguing that the focus needs to move away from a focus on projections of carbon dioxide-controlled climate and towards examining the more complex dynamics (external and internal) at play that determine both global and regional climate.

334 responses to “Big(ger) coal”

There is no such thing as a “carbon-dioxide controlled climate”. Such little empirical data as we have shows that there is no CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph; see Beenstock et al, and Mora et al. So the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero.

The mistake of Beenstock et al. is that data record from 1880 to 2007 is not statistically significant in order to get that polinomial cointegration. Anyhow, anthropogenic global warming cannot be set as a scientifically checked hypothesis by the same reason: data from 1880 to 2007 is not sufficient. More info on my:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
There is a lot of noise in climate science. But if you like maths and basic physics, you would be capable of distinguishing between: noise and science.

Except that, a) there has never been zero CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas in the earth’s atmosphere, b) there has never been zero water in liquid and/or vapour form, and c) the earth’s average temperature has never been nearly as low as -18C.
In short, the earth has never needed, nor has it ever had, C02 increasing from zero in order to elevate its temperature from such a frozen state.

If CO2 went to zero, green things and everything that depends on green things would die. Water would still regulate temperature. A trace gas would be missed by a trace amount and a unmeasurable trace temperature difference. That would not take us back to an Ice Planet. It would most likely get warmer without the green things that grow.

The Ordovician “Ice-ball Earth” period occurred while atmospheric CO2 was at 4,000 ppmv, or four times the current level.

So much for Lacis’ “CO2 climate control knob”.

Max

PS Of course, Cripwell is right. No CO2 = no life on Earth. But as far as the climate is concerned, between 5 and 7C natural global warming is attributed to natural atmospheric CO2, so (assuming these attributions are correct) we’d have a colder world without it, but it would still be marginally habitable (Ice Age conditions?)

That resulted in a competing focus of drilling and greater efficiency.

Cars cannot run on coal.
The crude oil prices exploded 1000% from $10/bbl to $100/bbl.
China now has coal to methanol factories sufficient for > 40% of its fuel use.
See Reducing the Strategic Importance of Oil

You are correct theoretically. Coal slurries have been tested in large engines. Using coal requires high abbrasion resistant parts. e.g. seeColloidal coal water fuel
Currently there are greater than 1 billion cars in the world that run almost exclusively on oil. Are there a handful at most that run on coal slurries?

Gasification will allow a car to run on coal with essentially the same modification required for running on natural gas. The cool thing about gasification is any combustible feedstock will do including but not limited to coal.

It’s all moot though. Synthetic biology is moving along too fast on the path of direct conversion of sunlight, CO2, and non-potable water, on non-arable land into hydrocarbon fuels such as ethanol and diesel. It promises to be cheaper than fossil fuel ever was. Another 20 years and it’s a done deal. Maybe sooner.

Springer – What is the conversion efficiency GJ fuel out to GJ Solar In? Biomass is typically 1.5% to 2%.
The underlying costs are still supply of CO2 and structural costs/m2. You have to show $/GJ with these parameters without public subsidy.

Sunlight cost is virtually $0 so it doesn’t enter the equation. Non-arable land is close to free as is non-potable water. Structural and CO2 costs come down as biological efficiency goes up. As a technology synthetic biology is in its infancy with vast room for improvement. See David the thing about synthetic biology is organisms can eventually be engineered that build their own bioreactors and CO2 concentrators and transportation systems. Living organism have already accomplished things as complicated as building rockets and traveling to the moon and back. The key is getting prokaryotes to do it because they work for free and have minimal health care requirements. We’re not far away from programmable prokaryotes – little robots that follow programmed instructions and can build copies of themselves in whatever number is required to accomplish any specific programmed task. It’s really not far off. All the pieces are in place. The first artificial organism was assembled and brought to life several years ago. The cost of assembling and testing artificial organisms is falling like the price of transistors fell on the short path from the industrial age to the information age. We are already on the path from the information age to the synthetic biology age and the path will be even shorter. Mark my words.

Springer
You can’t bypass Adam Smith and the laws of mass and energy conservation. See Charles Hall Energy and the Wealth of Nations
You still have not answered the questions:
Cost of CO2 $/ton
e.g. $75/ton for capture from coal plants
Cost of bioreactor $/m2
(e.g., conventional solar $200/m2)
Solar to fuel Converversion Efficiency %
(e.g., 3%?)
Then what is the $/ton fuel.

(I think there are ways to do sustainable fuels.) I would like to see how you show algae < $100/ton oil.

I believe that you missed my main point: Cleaner air, not air pollution, causes global warming. The main driver of the cleansing was the Clean Air Act and other international efforts to reduce air pollution, although your examples could have aided the process.

I don’t have specific numbers for individual cost items. At full-scale commercialization, Joule is targeting costs for ethanol and diesel to be as low as $1.28/gallon and $50/bbl respectively – without subsidies. This is based on an industrial-scale plant of at least 1,000 acres, producing commercial targets of 25,000 gallons/ethanol and 15,000 gallons/diesel per acre annually, and including capital costs.

Solar to Fuel conversion efficiency is 7.2% with a theoretical maximum of 12% which is several times higher than any other process. The gains come from using prokaryotes instead of eukaryotes which offer a twofold benefit where the first is no losses due to mitochondrial metabolism and greatly reduced loss due to production of non-fuel biomass. Ref:

Cost of CO2 $/ton depends on the source and regulatory environment. IEA estimates cost of capture at $25-$50 per ton falling as low as $10/ton from coal fired power plants by 2030. A ton of CO2 is needed for each 100 gallons of diesel so CO2 cost is in the neighborhood of $0.25 – $0.50 per gallon.

Cost of bioreactor is not advertised by Joule.

I would like to see how you show algae < $100/ton oil.

It’s not algae, dude. I keep trying to tell you that. You have a comprehension problem. Blue-green algae is no more algae than duckweed is ducks.

“Though the prokaryotic cyanobacteria are informally referred to as blue-green algae, this usage is incorrect since they are regarded as bacteria. The term algae is now restricted to eukaryotic organisms.”

Please indicate which bits of that you don’t understand and I’ll try to help you.

Springer
Thanks for the details and the clarification on cyano-bacteria.
DOE’s National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) lays out the CO2 capture road map in:Carbon Capture Energy Technology Plan. Its 2020-2025 goal is $40/ton of CO2 captured. Its “transformational goal” post 2030 is $10/ton. See page 21.

Thanks for the $50/bbl goal – i.e. about 50% below today’s ~ $100/bbl price. That compares to about $50/bbl to $93/bbl cost of production via existing replacement oils, so should be competitive IF they can achieve it. Increasing efficiency from 2% to 7.5% appears to be the major hurdle.

David Springer
Your reference link to Robertson et al. 2012 gives interesting helpful parameters. Citations to that include:Comprehensive evaluation of algal biofuel production: experimental and target results, CM Beal, RE Hebner, ME Webber, RS Ruoff… – Energies, 2012 – mdpi.com
Beal et al. provide quantitative parameterization, energetics and costing to quantify energy returns EROI and financial returns FROI. Both need to be > 1 for commercial reality. Beal et al. find both are currently << 1.
It will be interesting to see what can be done to achieve the at least order of magnitude improvements required to achieve energetic and financial profitability.
From this detailed quantification, I still see thermochemical routes as more commercially viable. Let me know when you can show quantitative improvements on these detailed parameters that can provide stock market returns.
PS both papers use "algal" as a generic term.

You’re still not discriminating between cyanobacteria and algal fuel. Algal fuel process grows algae then harvests it and extracts oil from the dead plant matter. The reference link you mention is used to compare algal biofuel to that produced by cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria excrete the fuel while they are alive. They are not green plants they are photosynthetic bacteria – the oldest organisms on the planet.. A great deal of efficiency is obtained because prokaryote metabolism is far more efficient. Mitochondria metabolism takes up energy without turning it into fuel molecules and there is a lot of plant matter left over after fuel is extracted from the dead algae although there’s a secondary market for that as cattle fodder which offsets the loss to a degree. Not considered is post-processing of the fuel molecules. In the cyanobacteria case diesel fuel is directly excreted and only needs simple fuel/water separation. In the algae case fuel precursors are extracted from the plant matter which requires further chemical refinement into biodiesel. Biodiesel is of limited use as it can only be blended into diesel in small fraction while the cyanobacteria product can be a large fraction of the blend.

This however is only the top of the iceberg for synthetic biology. Once you master programmatic control of prokaryotes they can be employed to build anything at any scale out of any materials that living things work with today which is to say a gigantic range of materials from wood to spider silk to calcium compounds and do it in very harsh environments when extremophiles that can function in high temperatures, high and low pH, organisms like radiodurans which can thrive in radioactive environments and even in vacuum. It’s not fantasy. All these organisms are alive and working today but the program control and capabilities are crafted by evolution for survival not for making fuel or furniture. What is developing is intelligently designed symbiotic relationships where we keep natural competitors at bay by one means or another so our engineered organisms can produce stuff for our needs. There are many such relationships already in nature such as gut flora in ruminants that digest otherwise indigestible plant matter, nitrogen fixing bacteria that live on the roots of plants, and so forth. It’s pretty much just a matter of cutting and pasting and reprogramming what nature has already designed and tested over billions of years just like you can go to a junkyard and cannibalize things and reassemble the parts into new things that didn’t exist before.

Cyanobacteria excrete the fuel while they are alive. They are not green plants they are photosynthetic bacteria – the oldest organisms on the planet.

Very unlikely to be the oldest. They have two types of photocenters that show a very ancient common ancestry, much older (probably) than the common eubacterial ancestry. Also, AFAIK they nest well within eubacterial trees for every type of molecule studied.

They may well be descended from a chimera between two eubacterial forms with different types of photocenters, or perhaps a major LGT event shipped the genes for one photocenter into an ancestor with the other type. Either way, or in any other scenario I know of, Cyanobacteria cannot be regarded as “the oldest organisms on the planet.“

Well, Richard Muller has been saying this loud for a while now. Any suggestions that don’t provide China and india with cheap fuel are feel-good wastes of time; distractions. Provide energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels – subsidies not counted, as they won’t help with China or India – and the problem becomes trivial.

IMO, that requires a careful and comprehensive effort to evaluate negative (and positive) externalities that are associated with fossil fuels (and non-fossil fuels) – that extend beyond the uncertainties of climate change. Would you agree? Have you seen analyses that do so?

No I do not agree. Imo, what you propose would need to be applied to all forms of energy production in order to be reasonable and that is not at all likely. These taxes would also have to be applied in all nations- also not likely

There have been extensive studies of external costs of energy, the most extensive was the EU wide ExternE project. I was involved in that in 1990s doing some research myself and leading the Finnish contrbution at that time. Participating in the work and in the project meetings made it clear that no agreement can be found on the size of the costs. Most of the where uncertain by a sizable factor, certainly larger than 2, uncertainty or disagreement by a factor of 5 might describe the outcome better.

Part of the analysis was done in collaboration with some American scientists in particular at early stages of ExternE.

Even if an agreement on the externalities could be found China and India would probably not be ready to internalize all of them.

What you say there is important as we in the U.S. absorb significant “external” cost by virtue of the geopolitical costs of keeping fossil fuels flowing.

Also, countries where the general public absorb the financial burden of adverse health outcomes from burning fossil fuels have a different form of “external” cost as compared to countries where people whose health is negatively affected just get sick and/or die w/o the distributed economic cost of the general public providing them with healthcare.

What I find interesting is that so many people are so convinced about the comparative costs of different forms of energy, yet no one can come to an agreement about the cost of externalities

You would also need to evaluate the consequences to not using coal and leaving the poor to starve and lead horrible lives.

Well, you’d have to evaluate the costs of substituting coal with other forms of energy. But yes, access to energy would need to be part of the full-cost accounting. But then, also, you need to factor in many factors to assess what correlates with access to energy. Simply genuflecting to fossil fuels doesn’t get the job done. Here – from wikipedia:

Development as Freedom, written by Amartya Sen (winner the “Nobel” economics prize), argues that “development” entails a set of linked “freedoms”: political freedoms and transparency in relations between people;freedom of opportunity, including freedom to access credit; and economic protection from abject poverty, including through income supplements and unemployment relief. The absence of any of these constitutes an “unfreedom.” A state of poverty will generally be characterised by interlocking “unfreedoms,” including a de facto lack of political rights and choice, vulnerability to coercive relations, and exclusion from economic choices and protections. From this, Sen concludes that real “development” cannot be reduced to simply increasing basic incomes, nor to rising average per capita incomes. Rather, it requires a nested package of overlapping mechanisms that progressively enable the exercise of a growing range of “freedoms” which allow the meeting of basic needs and the exercise of innate abilities and self-determination.

One obvious example, preventing a premature death does not result in additional cash flow in the micro or macro economy.

???

Parents dying prematurely doesn’t affect the economic status of their children? Workers dying prematurely doesn’t affect the economics of their market sector? Children getting sick and requiring healthcare before dying prematurely – due to externalities of burning fossil fuels – doesn’t affect the economics of healthcare? Funding the training and employment of a soldier who dies prematurely in fighting wars based (at least partially) on the need to maintain access to fossil fuels doesn’t affect cash flow in the economy?

And even though your example doesn’t seem to hold up to scrutiny, your original statement was blanket statement. Citing one example (even if it were a valid citation) does not prove the blanket statement.

“Would you agree?” Uh, no. My point (Muller’s point, Bjorn Lomborg’s point) is very simple: China and India will use energy that is cheapest for them. Externalities that effect anyone but them are not going to induce them to keep their people in poverty. Isn’t going to happen. Anyone from the real reality-based community has to deal with that.

So tell me, what is cheaper? How do we (or they) make that determination w/o assessing negative externalities?

The governments of China and India will craft their energy policies in specific ways, but that does not mean that their policies will accurately reflect cost – and most particularly costs to the full cross-section of society.

Externalities that effect anyone but them are not going to induce them to keep their people in poverty.

A couple of points. First, I am not only speaking of externalities that affect other countries.

Second, what confidence do you have that their energy policies will be crafted with an optimal return w/r/t the economic status of their populations? Do you think that countries always, successfully, determine policies on the basis of optimal return to the economic welfare of their populations? Do you think that the vested interests sometimes have undue influence on those policies?

Third, (to repeat) how do they assess what is optimally beneficial to economic growth if they haven’t factored in negative externalities?

Fourth, what areas of focus, other than increasing the use of fossil fuels, affect economic growth and poverty?

Development as Freedom, written by Amartya Sen (winner the “Nobel” economics prize), argues that “development” entails a set of linked “freedoms”: political freedoms and transparency in relations between people;freedom of opportunity, including freedom to access credit; and economic protection from abject poverty, including through income supplements and unemployment relief. The absence of any of these constitutes an “unfreedom.” A state of poverty will generally be characterised by interlocking “unfreedoms,” including a de facto lack of political rights and choice, vulnerability to coercive relations, and exclusion from economic choices and protections. From this, Sen concludes that real “development” cannot be reduced to simply increasing basic incomes, nor to rising average per capita incomes. Rather, it requires a nested package of overlapping mechanisms that progressively enable the exercise of a growing range of “freedoms” which allow the meeting of basic needs and the exercise of innate abilities and self-determination.

“Your statement presumes an assessment of what is cheaper.
So tell me, what is cheaper? How do we (or they) make that determination w/o assessing negative externalities?” Reasonable question. Answer: Look at what they’re doing. They have a massive building program of coal-fired power plants – one a week I’ve heard?
That seems to be their current conclusion.

I think it is reasonable to discuss this with them. But if they tell the discussers, “This is what works best for our country – way, way best,” don’t waste your time on some economist who thinks differently.

Domestic fuel prices in India have not kept pace with rising international fuel costs, resulting in consumer price subsidies. Reflecting sharp increases in fuel import prices over 2007 and 2008, subsidies peaked at over 2 percent of GDP in FY 2008/09. As international prices collapsed over the second half of 2008, subsidies also fell sharply to just under 0.9 of a percent of GDP in FY2009/10. However, with the rebound in international prices over the last three years, subsidies again started to escalate, reaching nearly 2 percent of GDP in FY 2011/12.

Fuel subsidies have been financed through a number of channels, including off-budget sources. Subsidies are incurred in the first instance by the predominantly state-owned oil marketing companies (OMCs) who sell fuel products to consumers at subsidized prices. These losses incurred by OMCs have been financed in a variety of ways. In FY 2007/08, just less than one-half of the financing was recorded on budget, with the remaining half financed off budget. On-budget transfers mainly took the form of so-called government ―oil bonds‖ issued to OMCs, while direct budget transfers to OMCs were negligible. Off-budget financing was split between transfers from state-owned enterprises involved in the upstream production of crude oil and OMCs’ self-financing. In effect, OMCs used part of the profits from the sale of other unregulated fuel products to offset these subsidy losses. By FY 2011/12, all on-budget financing took the form of direct budget transfers to OMCs, which accounted for around three-fifths of subsidies, with the remainder financed by upstream transfers.

In nearly all cases the impact of eliminating alleged negative externlities does not result in a change in cash flow. One obvious example, preventing a premature death does not result in additional cash flow in the micro or macro economy.

Premature deaths are not otherwise healthy people. They are old and infirm that die from respiratory issues. Some of this death pie is assigned to fossil fuel use. The value of a life used in most analyses is not even based on the economic impact of the loss of that life.

Sometimes society just accepts those negative externalities. About 40000 people die each year in auto accidents. We could eliminate most of these by driving tanks at 5 mph, but we don’t.

The value of a life used in most analyses is not even based on the economic impact of the loss of that life.

Which would be a reason why those analyses would be insufficient. But I’m confused, because previously you seemed to be saying that there was no (cash) economic impact to that loss of life. How could we expect the inclusions of something that doesn’t exist?

We seem to be moving goalposts around here. What is the discussion? That negative externalities don’t exist? That they have no economic impact on cash flow? That the assessments of negative externalities are inadequate?

Sometimes society just accepts those negative externalities.

There is no question that we have accepted those negative externalities. But that doesn’t affect the economic analysis of their cost. That we accept them does not disprove their cost.

Its this simple. the developed countries of the world can afford to cut C02. painful, yes, but we could afford it. However, going forward we are not the problem. The China and India will be the problem. There is some hope in switching China to natural gas at an accelerated pace. Can’t say much about it now, but its not a geology problem, not a technology problem, and not an environmental problem: fraking is green.

Limits on oil and on other resources are a signal that Nature is really in charge, not humans. We can’t escape these limits. If we try to mitigate climate change by using more renewables, we hit a different kind of limit–high-priced electricity, and the problems it brings

Energy consumption trends point to a planet using six times as much energy in 2075 compared to 2010. 3,000 quads. Coal consumption trends make it likely that over half that energy will be provided by coal.

For any–any–positive value for atmospheric sensitivity to concentrations of CO2, those figures point to climate change that we may find unwelcome.

Those who lament the environmental damage caused by hydroelectric and nuclear power inadvertently prolong the reign of Old King Coal. Those of us watching from afar are hoping that solar power slides under everyone’s radar and continues to grow at a double digit rate.

China is trying to ‘green’ its energy sources. Shanghai this year closed 2,000 coal boilers and replaced them with natural gas or renewable feeds. China needs to get green. They are suffering health consequences due to conventional polllution.

But just as Shanghai wants to go green, it confronts one stark reality. Every week a football stadium full of people get off a bus in downtown Shanghai, internal migrants from villages across China looking for a job, an apartment and a friend. All of which requires instant and reliable energy.

Chinal will be using a lot of coal for a long time. The solution lies elsewhere.

“The ADB study will be grim reading for climate negotiators seeking to find paths to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. If there are no new policy initiatives, Asia-Pacific’s average carbon-dioxide emissions are forecast to grow by 2% a year until 2035.” WSJ story – link below.

Judith Curry asserts [without evidence] “The political feasibility of a global carbon market with a carbon price of 40 Euros per ton is probably zero.”

LOL … it is striking (even hilarious) that citizens who adamantly reject “the best available climate science“ on grounds of excessive uncertainty … so commonly turn around and assert economic/political claims that incorporate *no* elements of uncertainty whatsoever!

Judith Curry, would it not be more reasonable to enquire: “Under what circumstances would a global carbon market with a carbon price of 40 Euros become politically feasible?”

a fan of *MORE* discourse, from your “best available climate science” link, one can read (among other stuff): Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, … . It seems they are gradually coming around to my point of view: climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state. They rather sabotage their good sense by subsequently writing about ancient days.

Global CO2 concentrations will continue to rise for decades because of the over 3 billion people worldwide that do not currently have access to electricity or personal transportation. Until another form of energy production is less expensive than fossil fuel. There are no mitigation actions that will alter the huge increase in emissions that will result from these 3 billion people.

Isn’t the smartest action that can be taken to prevent harms to people the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure? This needs to be planned and built to meet the local conditions. Better regional climate models that would provide reasonably forecasts of future expected temperature and rainfall projection for 20- 30 years into the future would be excellent for this type of planning.

Investment in good infrastructure seems to be the ONLY investment that will actually lessen any harms that may result from climate change for those paying the bills.

Improving infrastructure permits the growth of both wealth and resilience, which are key regardless of any weather and climate projections. Those are just details permitting more intelligent and effective use of infrastructure.

Start with cheap energy and good transportation, then let the chips fall where they may. Given those, adaptation will be effective enough to render all the iffy “projections” moot.

Rob, you make good points, but you understated the situation somewhat by failing to mention the 2 – 3 billion souls that are going to show up in the next few decades that will be hopping on the energy-intensive development train which China and India are now in the process of accelerating.

I agree that China and India (and to a lesser extent the other 10 countries with lesser populations and the same issues) will be driving energy use and the increase in worldwide emissions. This is why imo it makes sense for the US to focus on good infrastructure. It will actually do something to benefit those incurring the expense.

“With regards to climate science, I am arguing that the focus needs to move away from a focus on projections of carbon dioxide-controlled climate…”

——–
The growth in the use of coal in China and elsewhere, seemingly unstoppable, certainly would seem to put a huge “why bother” sign up to the rest of the world that may have a choice to use alternatives to fossil fuels. But it actually becomes even more imperative to understand then what a 600 ppm or 1000 ppm CO2 climate looks like, both on a regional and global basis, since it may be inevitable that we are headed there. Does it look like the mid-Pliocene, as many scientists are starting to focus in on? This seems to be a better focus for future climate studies. And if that’s the case, then preparing, planning for adapting, and hardening our societies and infrastructure for the high CO2 future seems to be a best use of resources.

“Does it look like the mid-Pliocene, as many scientists are starting to focus in on…’

I don’t know how you guys get out of bed in the morning, so fraught with potential danger is the world. Odds of getting killed in a car wreck this morning? OMG, 5 million to one! I’m not going anywhere.

At 600 or 1000 ppm CO2, the world will change to a different place than it is now– unless the sun was to reverse the trend toward being hotter than it was millions of years ago– which seems very unlikely. Change is opportunity– some species may thrive and some not so much.

Over the timescales it will take to reach 600 ppm it is difficult to even guess how society will change. I greatly doubt that people living at that time will rate the climate as their largest concern….or in their top 5

At this rate it could take only 50 years to get to 600 ppm. By itself burning all the proven coal adds 250 ppm, but might take 200 years, so what fraction of future fossil energy will be coal is the question. If it is half we end up with 900 ppm, about 5 C warming.

Web–Or should I call you Paul Pukite?
Over the last decade China has been adding coal fired power plants about as quickly as possible and CO2 has been rising at about 15ppm per decade. During the same period automobile efficiency has shown significant improvements and the worldwide fleet of automobiles are likely to have a much higher average efficiency 20 years from now than they have today. I see no evidence that the rate of increase of CO2 concentrations will double.

Rob Starkey, it has reached 25 ppm per decade so far and continues to rise, especially with China and other developing countries. An average of 40 ppm per decade for the next 50 years is quite possible given that the rate has been doubling every 33 years so far. This is the unmitigated scenario, remember.

I should have said the last one year was at that rate. It was 375 ppm ten years ago, so it would need to be 400 ppm for that rate to be true, but it only touched 400 ppm briefly, so we are just within reach.

Ringo, You have no idea what the EROEI metric will be on the fossil fuels that we will start extracting as the high grade fuels continue to deplete.

If we end up wasting one barrel for every 1.5 we extract, it is still a net energy positive but we end up with 2.5 times the carbon instead of 1.5.

And it appears that you are an “end of growth” type of catastrophist. Our energy demands will continue to grow because that is the way it has been. The Saudi’s using much of their oil for air conditioning is indicative of what will happen as more of the population climbs the prosperity ladder.

Paul
The EROEI would not seem to be directly relevant to the amount of CO2 released per year for quite a while. That metric has to do with how much energy has to be expended in order to bring a unit of energy to the market. I would agree that over the long term that it will take more energy for extraction of in-ground reserves, but I am not at all sure that is go to be a key number for several decades. Fracking is changing the market. Do you have any reliable trend data on EROEI?
Does it somehow make you feel better somehow when you insult others in a manner unrelated to the topic of discussion? Seems like a form of mental illness, maybe you need to seek professional help?

Congratulations on graduating from the Climate Science School of Math.

You’ve somehow calculated a 25ppm/decade trend from the last ten years when the actual trend was 20ppm/decade. A little lie and a little lie there and pretty soon you’ve got beneficial global warming turned into catastrophic global warming. Isn’t that how it works, Jim D?

DS, 2.5 ppm/yr is the current rate. 375 to near 400 ppm in a decade is what we had. It was in answer to someone who claimed 15 ppm, which you might have detected was off base too. I was much closer, especially for the ongoing rate. Check the ESRL data I linked to show the actual numbers. It is up to the beginning of 2013.

” Depends on whether or not the “Great Filter” is ahead of us or behind us. ”

Heh – OT, but anyway…

Why would we expect to see ETs? Either they can travel significantly (000’s of times) faster than light speed, in which case there are plenty of non-inhabited places/resources to visit/exploit/pillage first, or they can not go FTL, in which case, to get here they would already have the technology in place to sustain themselves in interstellar space for generations. In both cases, contact with a primitive, savage and xenophobic species like we currently would appear to be to them would be extremely risky and likely have very little benefit to them – best to avoid us until we show the ability to both contact them directly and to deal with the consequences of actually talking with them.

These generate 3.3 tons CO2 per ton of coal combusted, and with 50% of the generated CO2 “remaining” in the atmosphere, they would add around 190 ppmv, getting us close to 590 ppmv when all the “proven” coal is gone.

The “inferred possible recoverable coal resources” (according to the same report) were around 1,900 Gt. So this would add close to 400 ppmv, getting us close to 800 ppmv, when all the coal is gone.

Add in all the “inferred possible recoverable oil and gas” (same report), and the total CO2 generated is around 600 ppmv above the 2008 level, for a grand total (when all fossil fuels have been 100% used up) of just under 1000 ppmv.

That’s it Jim. Ain’t no’ mo’.

Gates hypothesizes that this would be “different world”.

Since this would occur in 200 to 300 years (if ever), I’d agree with Gates that it “will be a different world”.

Just look back at our world say 250 years ago: in 1763 – yep, it was “different” (but certainly not “better”). CO2 was lower than today by around 120 ppmv, but that was not the most important difference.

The year 2263 will also be “different”. And, in view of the new technologies that will result from economic drivers and human ingenuity, it will arguably be a “better” world for humanity, too.

And I don’t think the added CO2 will have any detrimental effect, as it did not over the past 250 years.

DS, 2.5 ppm/yr is the current rate. 375 to near 400 ppm in a decade is what we had. It was in answer to someone who claimed 15 ppm, which you might have detected was off base too. I was much closer, especially for the ongoing rate. Check the ESRL data I linked to show the actual numbers. It is up to the beginning of 2013.

The past year was 2.66ppm. The year before that was 1.88ppm. For the decade 2000-2010 it was slightly less than 2.0ppm.

If I were to say that global average temperature fell between 2010 and 2013 you’d object saying that isn’t representative of the long term trend. I would agree with you because I’m fair and objective. I’m making the same objection with regard to you using just the most recent year for atmospheric CO2 increase. No double standards.

You attempt to educate David Springer on trends related to annual CO2 increase.

Hmmm…

The annual ppmv increase you cite (1970 to 2013) is directly related to population increase. There is no upward trend at all in the per capita annual increase of CO2 ppmv.

The annual per capita CO2 emission increased by around 10% over this period (from around 4.0 to 4.4 tons), but the fraction of emitted CO2 “remaining” in the atmosphere decreased by the same 10% over the same period.

Related to the growth in CO2 concentrations, given the acceleration in the burning of fossil fuels and other positive feedbacks on biosphere, we can expect to see CO2 begin to go up by 3 or more ppm per year in the coming years. This could further enhanced by the slowdown in ocean uptake as the oceans continue to warm.

A rate of increase of 3 ppm per year seems alarmist and unrealistic imo. As technology continues to develop in regards to efficency, a slower rate of increase per person seems more likely in the future than has been experienced in the past.

The growth curve for the rate of increase in CO, especially if coal burning increases, would indicate that 3 ppm a year is quite possible and even likely with all other factors included as well. Hardly “alarmist”.

Isn’t a rate of 3ppm per year roughly a doubling of the highest rate of increase experienced? Is that likely given the increases in efficency? It would seem to be at the extreme end of possible senerios. It is possible- not likely

Actually the annual average increase for the past decade has been about 2.1 ppm per year, up from the prior decade of about 1.7 ppm per year. Thus, 3 ppm per year in the future is hardly alarmist and seems probable given all factors, including the human reluctance to reduce the eruption of the human carbon volcano.

Gates
When I looked at the link you provided I agree that between 2011 and 2012 it went up by 2.19 ppm. The average was less than 1 ppm per year between 1987 and 2007. I would agree that I overreached in writing the potential to increase to 3 ppm per year is alarmist. I’ll continue to look at the data and we’ll see if increased efficiency outweighs increased use.

3 PPM was not alarmist several years ago when government energy agencies and writers such as Yergin who worked for consulting agencies such as IHS predicted much higher growth rates in fossil fuels than we are now using. All you have to is look at the old predictions and compare to what we have.

But something entirely predictable happened.

We discovered that high grade fossil fuels were becoming more scarce and therefore more expensive. So the growth rate stabilized.

No one has been able to reach a threshold where the extraction of the low-grade fossil fuels could get us back in gear. Yet.

That is where the uncertainty lies and where the brave Canadian auditors fear to tread.

We should also remember that the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 (they have taken up a great deal of it) was not fully factored into previous calculations nor was the net release of CO2 from frozen biomass. These estimates also didn’t fully account for the continued growth in methane emissions, some of which is eventually converted to CO2.

The point is– there are many ways we can get to 3 ppm growth per year, none of which involves “alarmist” logic.

The increase in human-caused CO2 emissions has followed the increase in human population for several decades, with a slight increase in per capita CO2 generation (around 10% since 1970) – figures from CDIAC

If we ASS-U-ME that human population will increase to around 10.5 billion by 2100 (as the UN estimates) and that the per capita CO2 generation will increase by 30% from today (pretty high estimate), we end up with

2100 pop 10.5b, 60 GtCO2, 5.73 tonsCO2 per capita

If 50% of this “remains” in the atmosphere, we have an annual increase by 2100 of 3.8 ppmv (and an average rate of increase over the rest of this century of around 3 ppmv per year, as you suggest, reaching a value of around 650 ppmv by 2100, as a sort of “upper business-as-usual case”.

If there is a maximum switch to nuclear (replacing all new coal-fired plants after 2014, for example), this could be reduced by around 60 ppmv.

Other changes in transportation (switching to hybrids) and energy conservation/ “life style” measures could reduce this by another 20 ppmv or so, so we are looking at 570 to 650 ppmv CO2 by 2100, regardless of what we do UNLESS totally new technology emerges, which is more economical than fossil fuels (probable).

Your point is valid, but the tiny fluctuations of total energy output from the sun across all wavelengths on decadal, multidecadal, or century scales are dwarfed by the forcing from the rapid increase in GH gases. It would be nice if humans could get a free lunch and alter the alter the atmosphere in such a large and rapid way without significant impact, but such thinking is akin to the irrational thinking and “bargaining” that goes on when someone has gotten a piece of very bad news.

It seems to be disingenuousness, else why the distraction to ‘tiny fluctuations’. I really don’t know why you think your feigned ignorance is the least bit persuasive.

If the sun is the source of millennial scale changes, then it is something other than the ‘tiny energy fluctuations’ causing them. You should know by now that the Holy Grail is an amplifier which is dampable and not subject to runaway.

Mebbe you should start with the early Leif threads @ ClimateAudit, and his follow-ups @ Watts Up.

Persuasive, well, yeah, if you wanna persuade like Fan & Joshua & willard and the like. Keep it up, I’m more and more impressed.
============

It’s disappointing, RG, because you have wide vision and have been a relatively straight shooter for an alarmist. Go sit in the corner and consider yourself mindfully. This is important stuff.
=============

It is a relative thing Kim. Before the eruption of the human carbon volcano, the sun was indeed the major influence on Earth’s climate. Now it is plays second fiddle to the anthropogenic influence– thus, RELATIVE TO THE ANTHROPOGENIC INFLUENCE, the sun’s changes in output are minor.

“Go sit in the corner and consider yourself mindfully. This is important stuff.”
—
I resent your scolding Kim…but I still like you. I am a widely read, broad thinker, open to new ideas. I will gladly sit in corner, mindfully considering a great many things, as often I do exactly that, usually with some not tea and delightful music playing. Perhaps you’d care to join me sometime…

R. Gates aka the Skeptical Warmist. The magical reason that solar lost its mojo circa 1940 was because CO2 and aerosol forcing became dominate with CO2 expected to produce up to 4.5C of “Global” warming within a century. Since then the aerosol control knob was found to be defective due to “indirect” effects. The CO2 control knob is loose and falling down to below 2C by the end of the century maybe less. As a ‘Skeptic’ you should consider the source of the demise of solar forcing and consider that solar also has indirect effects and lags in the vast ocean system.

Capt.,
As an honest skeptic such as I am, meaning one who uses skepticism not as a badge or destination but as a tool to understand the universe, there is nothing that comes to my attention that I do not consider in an honest and thoughtful way, turning it over and over like you might turn over a new found rock on a beach. As I told Judith yesterday, my current provisional “truth” is that it is more likely than not that the decade of 2010-2019 will be the warmest decade on record, however it turned out the current Dalton-like minimum sun or Judith’s “stadium wave” hypothesis turns out to be spot out, that would not shock me either. But I think with each passing decade, as CO2 (and methane and N2O) continue their seemingly unstoppable march upward, it is increasingly likely that the decadal average will be warmer than the previous decade. Thus, 2020-2029 will be warmer still than either 2000-2009 or 2010-2019.
Where does it end? In a new Pliocene-like climate? Will it be catastrophic (at least to humans?) Will it hold off the next glacial advance? Maybe it will turn out to be net-beneficial? And what might all of this have to do with the “Great Fillter” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

All of these are pretty stones that I pick up and consider using my tool of honest skepticism…while sitting in the corner that Kim has sent me to, quietly sipping some Not Tea.

Bah, you pick up the sun stone, you mischaracterize it and set it back down quickly, pick it up again, fail to note its color, and reject it again. Now you want to babble about your high-falutin’ skepticism. Well, I’m skeptical of your skepticism.
=============

And don’t forget Hansen’s last theorem… that all the anthropogenic CO2 (increasingly) not remaining in the atmosphere is because of all the nitrogen in the burned Chinese coal is (increasingly) fertilizing the biosphere (allegedly) but we must stop doing it anyway (remorsefully).

Manacker’s been over this dozens of times. With the apparent weak warming effect(low sensitivity) of CO2, and the economics of ever scarcer fossil fuels, humans do not look likely to be able to catastrophically warm the world.

At the best, we will forestall the end of the Holocene, or improve our remaining years in it.
===============

Weak effect, temporary effect, manifesting itself as we speak. I don’t think anything but the end of the Holocene can free you of your fears of the ocean boiling, and then you’ll have a new set of fears.
===================

We can quibble forever about this. I use the term ‘Holocene’ to mean this particular interglacial. That means extensive glaciation at either end of it.

I know you’re all worked up about the Anthropocene, and there may well be some anthropogenic input to our temperatures today. I strongly doubt, given the evident CO2 effect now, and given finite fossil fuels on Earth, that we’ll be able to significantly delay the end of the Holocene. Whatever effect we do have may, I say may, ameliorate or delay the onset of the next glaciation.
==============

“I know you’re all worked up about the Anthropocene, and there may well be some anthropogenic input to our temperatures today. I strongly doubt, given the evident CO2 effect now, and given finite fossil fuels on Earth, that we’ll be able to significantly delay the end of the Holocene. Whatever effect we do have may, I say may, ameliorate or delay the onset of the next glaciation.”

I think it’s beyond the ability of the old world totalitarian governmental control to do anything to prevent the near glacial period from it’s appointed hour.
They would be too incompetent, wouldn’t care, and might want to kill off the populace as “a good idea”. So they would lack ability, skill, or desire.

But good news is old world totalitarian governments have never worked, there is little reason to suppose the will in the future.

I don’t expect that politicians will change, have are little different than they were thousands of years ago, but I expect people to change, even due to boredom, rather than any plan of action or purpose. New things will happen [which probably aren’t particularly new] socially, and technology will continue transform the world.
It’s seems like all life, human will evolve, and human tend to evolve faster,
has human evolution has little to do with biologically evolving [human may accelerate their biological evolution {not sure whether that could “improve anything”- other than perhaps more biological diversity}] .

Anyhow, my guess is human evolution will lead to space-faring species,
and any space-faring species will have little difficulty in regards global climate- unless they have some strange preference for a planet covered with a lot of ice caps.
It’s possible having mile high ice, could useful for a starport {Though the Moon or Mercury is probably better place for starports (and spaceports)].

“Anyhow, my guess is human evolution will lead to space-faring species,
and any space-faring species will have little difficulty in regards global climate…”

——
You probably liked Star Trek growing up. Winging your way across the universe, facing exciting danger and the occasional half-dressed alien (but still human enough) woman to consider a sexual encounter with. What could be better!

But this adolescent fantasy of space travel doesn’t seem to jive with the fact that our bodies just weren’t meant for such travel. Maybe our robots or some engineered intelligent artificial creation of ours will make it to the stars, or maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is “The Great Filter” :

——
“You probably liked Star Trek growing up. ”
Wasn’t keen of 2nd generation stuff, but I liked original series.
I think there is shortage of good sfi. I liked, Firefly.
I liked Lexx also.
But I think this solar system will keep us busy for a few centuries.
[And warp drive is not around the corner. But don’t need Warp
drive for star travel- 1/2 the speed of light would do.]

But what is needed is more markets in space- we have the satellite
market- which modern humans couldn’t do without.
And it’s criticalto understanding our climate.

But we need more markets in space.
We going to probably get a suborbital spaceflight market within
a year or two:http://www.virgingalactic.com/
andhttp://www.xcor.com/
These two companies appear to me the most promising.
In terms of orbital, SpaceX is pretty cool.
Another market we need is rocket fuel market is space:
fuel depots- LEO, Earth/Moon L-1/2, etc.
So NASA needs to start using fuel depots, and then NASA
should explore the permanent dark craters of lunar polar region
to determine, if and where there is commercially minable water.
And then NASA should send humans to Mars.
If NASA were to do this, we should get to point of having
solar power harvested from Space and the energy beamed
to Earth surface. Providing unlimited, constant, and cheap
electrical power to everyone on Earth, anywhere, and any time,
globally [mid-Pacific, north pole, wherever].
So before this we need a electrical market in space for space-
and get it, by mining water in space, and turning the water, into
Liquid Hydrogen and liquid Oxygen [rocket fuel- the best chemical
rocket fuel in the space environment]. And this will take some time before a free market in electricity in space [making rocket fuel and other uses]
can lowers the cost enough, so it can then be exported to Earth.
So, it could take, 50 to 100 years to get to such price level where this could be possible. But that would change everything- change things far more than satellite market has already changed everything on Earth.

Away with fairies or prattling on about “warmer is better”, when thinking about the ongoing 6th Great Extinction Event, the Fermi Paradox, the Great Filter, and of course the ongoing eruption of the Human Carbon Volcano, this kind of research makes me lots of fun at parties:

“But this adolescent fantasy of space travel doesn’t seem to jive with the fact that our bodies just weren’t meant for such travel. ”

Our bodies weren’t made for flying. Were at beginning of opening the space frontier. We are about where airplanes were in 1920 or so.

Anyhow, obviously humans can go to the Moon- 12 did go to the lunar surface.
It’s a bit harder to go to Mars- but it could be done. Probably far less than the amount Germany has wasted on solar and wind energy.
[Of course without our efforts related to space, there would be no solar panels. But you can’t blame, the mis-use of solar panels on Earth, due space technology- solar panels work great in space- it’s normal way to get electrical power in space.]

So as far as getting Human to Mars, to avoid the effects of “cosmic rays”
and micro-gravity I would suggest sending human to Mars relatively quickly. To do this you need a fair amount rocket fuel- rocket fuel depots.

But in terms beyond the exploration phase, where you at point of human settlements on Mars and want travel for a year or longer in space.
Then make any kind artificial gravity to want- 1/2 or 1 gee, whatever.
And in terms radiation shields, there is a lot mass in the form of space rocks. You even use an asteroid as space vehicle- thereby are less or the same amount radiation as is on Earth.
One way to move around in space could be to use nuclear bombs as propulsion- Nuclear Orion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
It’s much more efficient way to travel [can also work for intersellar travel].
Doesn’t work on Earth, because people don’t want nuke exploding in Earth’s atmosphere.
But if you doing fantasy of Firefly leaving earth [silliness] using Nuclear Orion is the way you could actually leave earth and travel directly to the stars [not vaguely a good idea, no doubt there good chance most would die trying]. Much better to leave from the Moon with Nuclear Orion, or from orbit. But point is, if want to lift city block type payloads off Earth- Orion is about the only known way to do it.

But sort of like Fireby series, I expect we will mostly use chemical rockets. We will use chemical rockets because it’s cheap and easy. There are Earth oceans of available water in our solar system, and lots of solar energy to split it into rocket fuel, and the rocket fuel could be cheaper in space than on Earth. For instance Ceres has thought to have a lot of water:
“The Cererian surface is probably a mixture of water ice and various hydrated minerals such as carbonates and clays. It appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and icy mantle, and may harbor an ocean of liquid water under its surface.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29
Anyways, the spacecraft, Dawn is going there, and will arrive in 2015.

It seems that the usually pragmatic gbaikie is away with the space-fairies.”

Well, you all typical discuss stuff which will happen by 2100.
In such a context of fantasy, I think I am being fairly pragmatic.
I am talking about what could be done before 2100.
Not going to stars before 2100- not crewed with humans.
I don’t we need to focus on interstellar travel within next 50 years-
but it seems by 2100 maybe it could be considered.

And path or direction to this, doesn’t add any more tax payer costs, than what we are currently spending.
In other words, maintain NASA’s current budget levels [which are rather small, btw, less than twice the budget of EPA. And less than yearly cost of Energy Dept.
But I think NASA is currently not focused very well in going in to direction I would suggest.

WIth regards to climate science, I am arguing that the focus needs to move away from a focus on projections of carbon dioxide-controlled climate and towards examining the more complex dynamics (external and internal) at play that determine both global and regional climate.

This is also right for the reason that you must use the coal to help the gas and oil last longer.

This is also right for the reason that a man-made fraction of a trace gas cannot be in control of earth’s temperature anyway.

To control the temperature of a massive system, you must use something that is abundant that changes state in the range you are trying to maintain. That abundant substance that changes state in the necessary range is WATER.

Also, the warm times are necessary and desirable. That is when the Polar Sea Ice Melts and provides the moisture for snow to rebuild ice on land. This has happened every time the earth got warm in the past ten thousand years and did limit the upper bound of temperature at about the same bound that we will have this time and it will limit the upper bound of sea level at about the same level as we have now.

Why isn’t the mining expert HackIntyre looking into how much coal reserves the world has and trying to get to the bottom at all the statistical errors that the IEA and EIA make in their fossil fuel projections?

‘Indeed, and would a mining consultant be consulted to audit the coal industry.”

Willard doesnt get being a SME.

Statistics is a tool. To use the tool optimally you need to put in time understanding the subject. Stats are necessary but not sufficient.

So, it took steve about 3 years of reading the literature in paleo before he was actually able to use his tools in the subject matter. My experience with UHI was about the same time commitment. 100s of papers to read.

A roofing guy knows how to swing a hammer. a hammer is tool. Chances are you dont want to put him on cabinet work and expect stellar results merely because he knows how to use a hammer.

There is little doubt that steve could one day focus on coal industry. he has the tools and skillz. But its his time. You might as well ask why hansen doesnt study the stadium wave or arctic ice or different time stepping mechanisms for GCMs. or ask why lewandowsky doesnt study the psychology of greens.

people do get to choose. ask why they dont choose otherwise is an invitation to personalizing the debate. A sneaky way, but disgusting nonetheless.

If you have easy access to the central estimates for ECS by those same authors, could you please post them too.

Do you have a list of the central estimates and range for the seventeen (I think) recent studies of ECS that are derived mostly from empirical data? Better still, do you have a link to where they are posted in one list or table?

“Why isn’t the mining expert HackIntyre looking into how much coal reserves the world has and trying to get to the bottom at all the statistical errors that the IEA and EIA make in their fossil fuel projections?”

simple. He likes working on proxies. Some folks take their shallow skills across wide plains. Steve is a hedgehog. Why doesnt a fish ride a bike

There’s a front page story, complete with an eyecatching picture, in the National Post today asking Is De Guzman Alive? I’ve posted up some comments on Bre-X before in connection with audit procedures, consensus, skeptics etc. at Bre-X #1, Bre-X #2 and Bre-X #3. De Guzman is the geologist at the heart of the salting of Bre-X assays, who supposedly committed suicide in March 1987 after the fraud was discovered. I’m also writing this note because I wanted to figure out a way to mention the season finale of 24 (which I watch faithfully.)

[…]

A moral to the Bre-X story, which I posted before and refresh again: I’m convinced that the Bre-X fraud originated not from the financiers, but by the field geologists. Incomes for field geologists in micro-cap companies are very hit and miss; it’s not like being a civil servant. If they sent good news to head office about better and better results, Bre-X could raise more money and keep the exploration funding going. The wheels fell off because, in mining businesses, you can objectively tell eventually whether there is ore or not. For some one on the business side of speculative exploration, even where there is no overt fraud, you have to be wary of your own geologists, who are unconsciously inclined to make the exploration seem more promising than it may actually be.

The amount of money being spent on climate research is a big amount. So when UCAR (the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), who receive a huge amount of federal funding for climate reasearch, issues a national press release announcing that Ammann and Wahl had merely submitted a paper supposedly showing that they had “confirmed” the hockey stick, do you think that there is a touch of self-interest in their behavior?

David, good summary. There is also a German report available in English from the Ludwig Boelkow Systemtecnik GMBH. Has additional regional granularity, and adjusts for coal rank which Rutledge was a bit shaky on. Same conclusion of peak production before 2050, slower drop than Rutledge thereafter.

At least I show the awareness that I am a realist stuck in the middle of a clown show of deniers and cornucopians. You not so much.

Reason doesn’t work here in terms of actually changing mindsets, but at least you get a chance to hone your arguments and idiot proof your algorithms.

Witness the complete confusion over whether we have limitless fossil fuel which is great until it ends up cooking us, versus a doubling of our current cumulative which will be benign but leaves us hanging for alternatives.

That is the intricate Kabuki dance that the neo-Luddite deniers are engaged in.

You appear not to have studied biblical prophecy and their place in the Judeo-Christian civilization, nor to be aware of the probabilities of their fulfillment. e.g. for a quantitative survey see J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, ISBN: 06-066476-2 with 1,817 entries addressing 8,352 predictive verses. Your challenge, should you accept it is to show that these have no more than random probability.

I see “deniers” that climate has major natural variations, and cornucopians who deny that fuel production is constrained below historic growth trends. As a research engineer I am working on interim and sustainable replacement fuels.

You need to not just make your models them “idiot proof” but to make them “PhD proof”.

E.g. what is your null hypothesis? How do you address the increasing number of models predicting slowing warming?
See the above ref on coal resources. What if all the buried coal were restored to the atmosphere. How would that be any warmer than conditions when the coal was formed? Considering the massive amounts of CO2 buried as limestone?

@David Hagen
“See the above ref on coal resources. What if all the buried coal were restored to the atmosphere. How would that be any warmer than conditions when the coal was formed? Considering the massive amounts of CO2 buried as limestone?”

Our recoveries of naturally sequestered carbon as HC is pathetically low per Jeffery S Dukes.
Nature was very inefficient and polluting. :)
As I recall , Athabasca bitumen is leftover after about 2/3 of original carbon removed via bio-degradation.

The UK ever eager to demonstrate it is “tackling climate change” all on its own have introduced a unilateral “carbon floor price” mainly to penalize coal because it is so cheap.

The tax is designed to ensure that whatever happens with European carbon prices, power producers in Britain will pay at least 30 pounds per ton by the end of the decade.

Britain who led the world with the industrial revolution fueled by coal, is now seemingly determined to lead the world back to the 18th century. We will burn wood and rely on weather almanacs for power.

In Britain, we do.”Every winter in the UK, 25,000-30,000 deaths are linked to the cold weather,” chirps the NHS website, as if this were as grimly inevitable as the winter itself. That’s about one death every seven minutes. The long, harsh winter of 2012/13 looks set to push the death toll over 30,000 – way more than the casualty rate for, say, breast cancer or road (and all other) accidents. Jack Frost is one of Britain’s biggest killers. . . .
While we worry about global warming, the cold is the real killer. Ed Davey has five main climate change policies that push up our bills: the Emissions Trading Scheme, Carbon Price Floor, Renewables Obligation, Energy Market rigging and feed-in-tarrifs. These five policies add an average £62 to fuel bills today, and are expected to add £199 in 2020 and £271 in 2030. Without those five policies, fuel bills would fall by 10pc by 2020, rather than rising by 6pc. And in 2030, they’d be 4pc lower than today, instead of 18pc higher

There are some very weak links in the “chain of causation” between burning of fossil fuel and climate “catastrophe”. There are, as well, other risks involved in dumping burned fossil carbon into the biosphere without even knowing where half of it is going, much less what (if any) damage it’s doing/going to do along the way. Therefore, IMO, we should separate the whole issue of “climate science” from that of burning fossil carbon.

Pointing directly at the question of Chinese coal-fired power, a couple years ago I worked up some general numbers around the possibility of using Azolla as a method of extracting CO2 from the air. For purposes of remediation, the resulting biomass would have to be dumped somewhere (semi-)permanently removed from the biosphere, such as into a subducting ocean trench that already gets plenty of sediment.

However, there are other options, especially for near-term development. To the point of this post, I strongly suspect that coal-fired power systems could be made capable of using powdered, carbonized azolla in place of coal with little added cost. AFAIK:

In most coal fired power plants, chunks of coal are crushed into fine powder and are fed into a combustion unit where it is burned. Heat from the burning coal is used to generate steam that is used to spin one or more turbines to generate electricity. [from here]

The result is that investment today in power plants designed to use coal could be made safe from “green obsolescence”, that is the accelerated loss of value due to conversion to “renewable” resources.

And China is a particularly good place for that to happen: azolla has been grown there for centuries, as green manure and fodder. The industrial farming of azolla for use in place of coal could probably be ramped up with some seed subsidies and protective barriers, something China seems to be doing a lot of these days.

This would put coal-fired energy into the same class as the bio-methane proposal would put methane-fired: a transition technology to renewable energy.

In my blog post, I was looking for what it would take to draw down the pCO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere in a decade or so. But let’s take a look at the coal-replacement production capacities outlined there.

I calculated around 13,000 metric tons of carbon fixed per square Km (Km^2) per year. Here I’m going to assume that fixed carbon in cellulose is roughly equivalent in energy from combustion to that of coal. This means that one Km^2 given over to azollaculture can potentially produce the equivalent of 13 Ktons of coal/year.

In 2008, the world’s total arable land amounted to 1,387 Mha, and 4,908 Mha was classified as “agricultural land.”

One MegaHectare =10,000 Km^2, so the world’s total arable land is around 13,870,000 Km^2.

Let’s suppose, in round terms, that an amount of surface (not necessarily land) equal to a million (1,000,000) Km^2 is converted to intensive azollaculture. This would amount to 13 Gigatons, or 13,000 Megatons, coal equivalent/year. According to the World Coal Association, the estimated 2012 world coal production was 7,831 Megatons, 7.831 Gigatons.

This gives us a very rough idea what it would take to replace today’s coal production with “renewable” azollaculture. Note that land dedicated to azollaculture need not be good for much else, and it wouldn’t necessarily need to be land. A variety of water-borne farming solutions can be envisioned.

No that would be Craig Loehle who works for a paper and lumber industry lobbying group funded by Koch Industries, see Georgia-Pacific the makers of Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, and plywood products.

Kochtopus has their arms around anything to do with resource exploitation.

WebHubTelescope
Thanks for rising to address the science.
From the mathematical definition, the log of an exponential is a linear function.
Loehle and Scafetta added that on top of an underlying natural fluctuation.
For quantitative CO2 absorption models see the numerous published Line By Line (LBL) models such as Hartcode by Ferenc Miskolczi etc.
Please clarify what you mean and provide evidence for your assertion:
“the log(CO2) trend can and does have a knee in its profile.”

“China and Germany are huge coal users and usage is increasing in both nations. More than 50 percent of German electricity now comes from coal as coal fills the gap from closing nuclear plants. Today, China consumes more than 45 percent of the world’s total coal production.” Steve Goreham (‘Climate Policies Lock Chains on Developing Nations’)

An enormous amount of Chinese coal consumption goes into cement and steel making to support their building boom. How one can accelerate a building boom with a working age population that has already peaked is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Of course Climate Alarmism is also beyond my ability to comprehend.

Then again how a $500/month Obamacare health insurance policy with a higher deductible then my $400 existing Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance policy is more ‘affordable’ is also beyond my ability to comprehend.

I guess don’t uderstand ‘advocacy math’.

Chinese Coal consumption is near peak unless they manage to someone re-ignite their fertility rate.

“How one can accelerate a building boom with a working age population that has already peaked is beyond my ability to comprehend.”

Keep in mind that they’re also relocating large populations from rural areas to cities, some of which are completely new. How successful that is is a different question, but I can certainly see them continuing to build these new cities for another couple of decades, anyway.

And real cities continue to grow, as well. Shenzhen is growing like Silicon Valley in the ’90s, for example. Their model is to develop bands of industrial suburbs around their old cities, particularly the ports.

They’ll be using lots of concrete and power until the ROW stops buying their exports. And that won’t be for a long time.

The relocation to the cities has largely peaked…if anything a ‘return to rural life’ is ensuing as there is abundant rural housing at ‘dirt cheap’ pricing.

I.E. If you had 600 million rural inhabitants and that has dropped to 450 million rural inhabitants then the ‘abandoned housing’ ends up being virtually free. We have this same ‘boomerang’ effect in some places in the US.

Per capita chinese cement consumption is 4.5X per capita US cement consumpton.

it’s a building boom…all building booms end…and no government official will ever predict the end of a building boom…(see US housing market crash).

So we get advocates taking the official line(the building boom will not only never end…but it will accelerate) and projecting based on that.

Building booms ALWAYS end, the politicians who didn’t project the end get thrown from office and life goes on. Of course a politician projecting the end of a building boom would also get thrown from office as a ‘chicken little’ depressing the economic good times.

China is making the “great leap forward” (but not in the direction Mao wanted) and they are well on the way to be as rich or richer as Americans. They need coal for that, and that is what they are going to use.

“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event” ”

“China alone last year embarked on a programme of building 562 large coal-fired power stations by 2012 – that is, a new coal-fired power station every five days for seven years… China will overtake the United States as the largest source of emissions. India, which like China has substantial indigenous coal reserves, is set to follow a similar path, as is Brazil.”

“I am in favour of a green agenda, but we can’t be religious about this. We need a new energy policy. We have to stop pretending, because we can’t sacrifice Europe’s industry for climate goals that are not realistic, and are not being enforced worldwide,” he told The Daily Telegraph during the Ambrosetti forum of global policy-makers at Lake Como.

“The loss of competitiveness is frightening,” said Paulo Savona, head of Italy’s Fondo Interbancario. “When people choose whether to invest in Europe or the US, what they think about most is the cost of energy.”

Here’s an example of real ambition for ‘ya: as people of every nationality, race and ethnic background around the world set out every day to do the heavy lifting, working in the oil fields, the coal mines, using gas-fired furnaces to smelt iron ore, etc., the Left was busiy conjuring up its big plan of sitting back on their stealthy, wealthy, fat arses and trading carbon permits… until… George Bush defeated the Eurocommie’s pick for president and said, “Nyet!” to Kyoto.

“In July 1997, Enron CEO Ken Lay met with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in the Oval Office. Enron had begun a pattern of soft money donations to Democrats and the Clinton White House years earlier. Clinton, Lay, and Gore discussed approval of the Kyoto protocols on carbon emissions.[50] Clinton asked Lay for his views “in advance of a climate treaty to be negotiated at an international conference.” Clinton agreed to support Lay’s proposal for a carbon emissions trading exchange[51] which Enron hoped to profit from hugely, while American consumers would pay steep price increases for electricity and natural gas. Enron also asked for and received from Clinton’s Export-Import Bank a $300 million loan to build a power plant in India; four days later Enron donated $100,000 to the Clinton-Gore campaign.

“The Republican Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty by a 95-to-0 vote on August 15, 1997. ”

“…the Bush Administration in the United States has rejected the Kyoto Protocol from being considered for ratification by the United States’ Senate. This American response seems particularly problematic because the United States is the largest producer in the world—nearly twenty-five percent–of heat- trapping greenhouse gases that seriously aggravate the global warming situation.”

(Christopher C Joyner, ‘Burning International Bridges, Fuelling Global Discontent: The United States And Rejection Of The Kyoto Protocol’)

“The U.S. signed the Protocol, but did not ratify it. In the US, ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would require the treaty to be approved by both the Senate and Executive branch (i.e., the president) of the US government. Before the Protocol was agreed on, the U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution unanimously disapproving of any international agreement that 1) did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 2) “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”.[111] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty,[112] it remained only a symbolic act and was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.”

The thankless Euros were trying to back-stab and game the US–e.g., France got a pass based on being mostly nuclear and Germany had built-in protection from ever paying a dime as they were to get credits for replacing all of the dated East German facilities that Germany would have done irrespective of anti-America carbon-trading scheme. Bush call BS and Europe hated him thereafter for not being a Leftist.

“develop tactical and strategic regional adaptation plans to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events, climate change, and sea level rise.”
Since none of those have been happening beyond the normal pattern, despite all forecasts to the contrary, just help with infrastructure and cheap energy and regions will take care of themselves just fine, thank you.

The real environmental problem with Chinese and Indian coal burning isn’t CO2, but particulates, SOx, NOx, and the other actual pollutants. If the west wanted to play a constructive role, they would be trying to help the BRICS adopt relatively cheap technology that deals with these actual pollutants and give up the CO2 fetish.

Most of the particulates come from burning coal in a braziers at home or in using it for metal work in small factories or boilers for heating.

“The research stems from a policy China implemented during its era of central planning, prior to 1980. The Chinese government provided free coal for fuel boilers for all people living north of the Huai River, which has long been used as a rough dividing line between north and south in China.

The free-coal policy means people in the north stay warm in winter — but at the cost of notably worse environmental conditions. Using data covering an unusually long timespan — from 1981 through 2000 — the researchers found that air pollution, as measured by total suspended particulates, was about 55 percent higher north of the river than south of it, for a difference of around 184 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic meter.”

“Global coal consumption is expected to rise by 25 percent by the end of the decade to 4,500 million tonnes of oil equivalent, overtaking oil at 4,400 million tonnes, according to Woodmac in a presentation on Monday at the World Energy Congress.”

Of course when burn hydrogen, you get water and oil has more hydrogen
in it than coal. Coal is like wood- most of it is carbon.
So 1 ton of coal equivalent 1 ton of oil does not make the same amount of CO2. Per amount energy, coal makes at least twice as much CO2.

So we don’t have wait to 2020 for coal consumption to equal the oil consumption
in terms of CO2, coal has always made more CO2 than oil.

So gallon of gasoline is about 6 lb. And 6 lbs of coal gives
5.4 kWh of energy. An unlike barrel of petroleum a gallon
of gasoline is 33.7 kWh. [A reason why we do not have coal
driven cars. Of course, one also needs massive engine to get efficient energy from coal]
So you need about 36 lbs of coal to equal 6 lbs of gasoline in terms
of energy. 1 lb coal makes more CO2 than 1 lb of gasoline- more importantly you gets more energy lb [mass/weight hydrogen has a lot energy}
Gasoline:
“Energy is obtained from the combustion of gasoline by the conversion of a hydrocarbon to carbon dioxide and water. The combustion of octane follows this reaction:
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
gasoline contains about 42.4 MJ/kg.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content
Hydrogen has 120–142 MJ/kg
A problem with hydrogen is require more volume per energy-
gasoline and methane provide a means to use hydrogen in a more dense form.

And natural gas has less carbon or higher percentage of hydrogen
than gasoline. So natural gas is lighter than air. And 1000 cubic feet is
around 50 lbs.
So in terms of “hydrogen economy” if one use H2- it’s 100%
If use wood or coal it’s near 0%, gasoline about 50%, natural gas about 75%. [Methane: CH4].

“A reason why we do not have coal
driven cars.” Except, of course for the Tesla Model S.

Yeah.
True.
But more than all the electrical vehicles, anything bought from China could also be said, to be made from more coal being burnt.
So that means the wind mills and solar panels, and all the other
welcomed cheaper products from China

So all lefty driven [and lobbyist driven] nonsense, which helped cause US production to be reduced due to constant addition to manufacturing cost and thereby helping China be *more competitive*, caused there to be much more coal to burnt globally.

Or it’s good that China has had long period of economic growth, but somewhat less growth would have been as good for China [or better].

Fracking hasn’t changed peak oil much at all. The entire US TRR is 29Bbbl, newest 2013 EIA estimate. Ghawar oil fields remaining TRR is 65BBbl. The US probably has the largest tight oil deposits. Russia may be similar. Doesn’ much move the needle. Does on natural gas, by perhaps two decades. See my previous posts on the Maugeri nonsense and on the IEA 2008/2010 projections. All the facts were set out in some detail.

Commercially recoverable reserves of tight oil in the rest of the world could be double or more those of North America and the geology of the 23 best opportunities is better in some cases, according to a new study.

The study by the analytics firm IHS nevertheless warned that development is likely to be slower than has been witnessed in the United States, held back by above-ground reasons including government policy and regulation, lack of access to specialised kit and skilled labor, and land-access constraints.

Other studies making similar forecasts have also highlighted such barriers and the potential for higher costs.

According to the Financial Times, the IHS study puts the cost of the average well outside North America at $8 million compared with $5.6 million inside North America, ranging from $6.5 million in Australia to more than $13 million in parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

The study, outlined in a news release by IHS, maps the potential for “tight” or unconventional oil without the benefit of well data and so has estimated only what are known as “technically recoverable” reserves outside North America.

Tight or unconventional oil requires the same hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques as shale gas. Like shale gas, it has become a boom U.S. industry, transforming the economy through cheaper energy and reduced reliance on imports, leading other countries to look at developing similar reserves.

The study found that more than half the global technically recoverable reserves outside North America were concentrated in just 23 of 148 potential development areas it analysed. It put the total at 300 billion barrels, with 175 billion in the top 23 areas – known as “plays” in the oil and gas industry.

Commercially recoverable resources in North America have been estimated at 43 billion barrels.

Jan Roelofson, IHS research director and adviser for unconventionals, called the potential “very, very large”.

“The final measure of technical or commercially recoverable resources cannot be truly known until the actual well data is available,” he said.

“But this study’s unique, data-based assessment shows that the potential of just the highest-ranking plays is likely double the size of North America’s resources, and that is a conservative estimate.”

IHS said each play was analysed on key geological and geochemical characteristics.

“…The range of geological characteristics and risks of the 23 highest-ranking global tight oil plays compare favourably, or even better in some cases, than those of leading North American plays,” said Steve Trammel, also an IHS research director and adviser and the project leader for the study.

The 23 highest-ranking tight oil plays identified by the study include well-documented areas such as the Vaca Muerta formation in Argentina, the Silurian “hot” shales in North Africa and the Bazhenov Shale in west Siberia.

However, the list also includes lesser-known geological plays in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Australia.

I disagree with this from JC
“the focus needs to move away from a focus on projections of carbon dioxide-controlled climate”
With a CO2 rise to 600-800 ppm by 2100 (4-6 W/m2 forcing), it can be assured that CO2 will be the biggest factor in the resulting climate change. The focus decidedly needs to stay on the main driver, which is the CO2. The “trillion tonne” limit proposed for a 2 C warming will be easily exceeded because that would limit CO2 to about 520 ppm if successful, but requires tapering from today’s rate towards zero emission linearly over the next century, which given China and India, is not about to happen. In this case, the only role left for climate science is to predict the level of damage we have to adapt to.

“In this case, the only role left for climate science is to predict the level of damage we have to adapt to.”
____
Precisely. Those looking at the Pliocene paleoclimate data are probably the ones we should be following– and oddly, that’s exactly what I spend a great deal of time on. Go figure…

the doomsday argument is something to consider along these lines too. I suspect if as a species we want to survive we will have to do something a little more special than merely sitting back and expecting “free hands” of markets and whatever to drop solutions into our laps.

lolwot, instead of a “market” with all those woolie buggers you abhor, call it innovation. People don’t have to be in it for the money to be innovative, seems to help, but I am sure you can find a band of merry men(women) pure of heart and filled with the spirit of UNtopian ideology to create solutions without “exploiting” nature and without being coerced into a volunteering their priceless services.

At the height of the Cold War a Russian and American general are describing how well they look after their troops, the Russian General says
“The average Soviet Soldier gets 500 calories at every meal”
“That’s nothing” says the American, “Our boys get up to 1,500 calories, four times a day”
“Liar!” screams the Russian, “No one can eat that many potatoes”.

Even if CO2 from burning coal turns out to be less than alarming, black soot is a first-order climate forcing in the Arctic and Himalayas. Much about this at R. Pielke Sr’s website. Until China gets motivated to clean up their own air, it seems pollution increase will continue. Too bad developing economies must go through the same sequence of errors we pioneered.

“Even if CO2 from burning coal turns out to be less than alarming, black soot is a first-order climate forcing in the Arctic and Himalayas. Much about this at R. Pielke Sr’s website. Until China gets motivated to clean up their own air, it seems pollution increase will continue. Too bad developing economies must go through the same sequence of errors we pioneered.”

Black soot, is merely unburnt carbon- as result of inefficient combustion-
China is improving in terms of black soot, as that is a waste of energy [money].
The significant pollution is they are using [and have in the ground] high sulfur coal. Removing sulfur from coal is more difficult [we aren’t doing it in any significant degree] and removing it in combustion process, is done in US and in China- but it makes using coal more expensive. And how clean one burns coal is gradient- the more clean, the more expensive.
So getting china to point of burning coal as clean as the US does it, could be done, but cheapest way burn coal cheaply is starting with low sulfur coal- which US has lots of and China doesn’t.
I would guess, that since China has a lot sulfur in coal, and they need every
bit of their coal, they will eventually get to point being able to use high sulfur coal, so it makes less SO2 emission [as they have a large economic need to do this- or if no other reason to stop the peasants from revolting].

But I don’t think China is making errors- if china *has to be* socialist they
doing ok. The error is being socialists- they making a bigger error in this regard than they we pioneered. And the massive pollution is but a sign
of this error, and massive pollution is a something that generally accompanied socialism.

Australia has recently aspired to world leadership in domestic carbon taxation. We’ve followed a strategy of crippling domestic industry and energy while simultaneously being one of the world’s top coal exporters. Japan, Korea, Taiwan take plenty, but our main customer now is…oh, you guessed. (All this may seem contradictory unless you’re thoroughly post-modern – which you really ought to be these days.)

Anyway, just posted this at a local Oz site on the same subject:

I’m not sure how one wages a low-carb war against a superpower…but here is China’s share of world coal consumption:

No big deal unless coal is being consumed globally at a much higher rate. It is. (Doubled since the oil shocks of the mid 1970s.) So how much is China producing? A quadrupling just between 1999 and 2010 (after which it stopped telling).

But never mind share of consumption and domestic production. What about tonnage, the real meat of the matter? This shows what a few other nations are burning as well.

Whoa…China! Don’t forget the usual utterances about “moving towards” a low carbon economy. For some reason, the vegetables of our Western intelligentsia like it when you “move towards”. Just put a solar panel on a shed somewhere in Yunnan: the luvvie commentariat will stay sweet.

Australia, while crippling its coal power gen, is turning its coal to massive export dollars. So much nicer than burning it. And if somebody else is burning it, whose fault is that? (Beside Abbott’s, I mean.) And did you really think all those solar panels and wind turbines can be made with power from solar panels and wind turbines? Get real, hippie. (Here your urban middle class hippie makes very weak noises in favour of nukes. That’s just because he has to say something.)

So when your local takeout can’t pay his power bill or re-gas his fridges in a country which ought to be an energy paradise, comfort him with the thought that every tiny little bit counts…even if he and you and I and the Chinese know that’s not so.

“WIth regards to climate science, I am arguing that the focus needs to move away from a focus on projections of carbon dioxide-controlled climate and towards examining the more complex dynamics (external and internal) at play that determine both global and regional climate.”

You said it right: more complex. If we have not figured out the easier one, then we need a lot of luck and more tens of billions of dollars to waste.

Gosh this article suddenly made me realize I’ve been compartmentalizing:

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person’s having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

I also wonder if this isn’t being played out by just about everybody in a mass unconscious psychology. No matter what you think about AGW or energy there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it! India and China are not going to change, period. The socialists of the US and Europe will destroy their economies for nothing. What a sham.

I’ve been obsessing on alternative energy and carbon-negative technologies. How naive; what a fool I’ve been. This whole thing is a charade. The IPCC is truly a ship of fools. Even by being a complete denier you are subjecting yourself to ridicule for no good reason. The whole debate superfluous.

“The IPCC is truly a ship of fools.”
No so. They are actually very clever chess players:
* Scare the living daylights out of the sheep through widely-publicized Assessment Reports.
* Bribe politicians and bureaucrats with dreams of money, power and taxes.
* Induce the UN to play along through the prospect of a 0.7% extraction of the Gross Domestic Product from successful nations, for distribution to dictators (who have unsuccessful nations). (Agenda 21)

Agenda 21 contains the United Nation’s plan for a form of super-government. It is reviewed periodically by delegates to a convention; the last being RIO 21, as I recall. The U.N. documents have a habit of hiding, but once captured in a personal database, they can run, but not hide.
A U.S. website is here: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/eco.htm

The comment about U.N. taxation comes from here:
Means of Implementation – Chapter 33 of Sec VI.
33.13. In general, the financing for the implementation of Agenda 21 will come from a country’s own public and private sectors. For developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, ODA is a main source of external funding, and substantial new and additional funding for sustainable development and implementation of Agenda 21 will be required. Developed countries reaffirm their commitments to reach the accepted United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for ODA and, to the extent that they have not yet achieved that target, agree to augment their aid programmes in order to reach that target as soon as possible and to ensure prompt and effective implementation of Agenda 21.

Pooh, Dixie,
Ship of State with Captain United Nations at the helm.
Jest bought Nassim Taleb’s recent book ‘Antifragile’ and here on
page 60:
‘ … unlike Adam Smith, Plato did not quite get it. promoting the
well-known metaphor of the ship of state, he likens a state to
a naval vessel, which of course, reqires the monitoring of a
captain. He ultimately argues theat the only men fit to be captain
of this ship are philosopher kings, benevolent men with absolute
power who have access to the form of the good.

Why a big ‘no, no, no’ to Kyoto was explained by George W. Bush, as follows: “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide” and because Kyoto, “exempts 80 percent of the world…from compliance.” AGW theory has never been anything more than a hoax and a scare tactic that the Left believed it could use to fleece America and the Left still can’t accept that their big plan was thwarted by “W.” Bush was never anti-Europe: Bush was pro-America and that is all it takes to earn the hatred of the Left.

FYI. We hope that you can join us for the inaugural webinar of the Association for Environmental Studies & Sciences, which will focus on an important new study of metrics for quantifying the social costs of carbon and the implications for policymaking.

Presents a webinar on
Social Costs of Carbon and
President Obamaâ€™s Climate Action Plan

The SCC, an estimate of the health and environmental costs associated with the carbon pollution, has become a political football in Congress as the President moves forward on addressing climate change. Laurie will discuss her new article in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, â€œThe social cost of carbon: implications for modernizing our electricity system,â€ covering the results in the paper and how they relate to the Presidentâ€™s Climate Action Plan.

This is a free service provided by the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences (AESS).
Become a member of AESS and sign up for the AESS Listserv today!
Please share with your colleagues, students and friends.
Presented by:
Laurie T. Johnson
Chief Economist, Climate and Clean Air Program, Natural Resource Defence Council

The AESS webinar series highlight recent articles in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, which is a members-only benefit of the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences. The article being highlighted in this webinar is The Social Costs of Carbon: the Implications of Modernizing our Electrical System.
1101 17th St NW Suite 250 | Washington, DC 20036 US

Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles. The earth does not have limbs and muscles; therefore it does not move.
– Scipio Chiaramonti, Professor of philosophy and mathematics at University of Pisa, 1633.

People give ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon… Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, not the earth.
– Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Dr. Curry, the US will move away from coal without any regulation and with no thought for CAGW after Obama leaves office, because combined cycle gas turbine (Braylon cycle exhaust heats Rankine cycle steam) run as baseload is now 61% net thermal efficient. Actual numbers for 1 year operation of an actual 600Mwe unit. The newest supercritical steam coal plants (being built in China) are 41%. That is a pretty hard limit due to metallurgy-pushing the steel stength envelope at those temperatures and pressures. Even if natural gas goes back to $6-8/mbtu ( and it will go back to at least $6 by 2015 given fracked decline curves and current rig counts) coal cannot compete economically in the US. With respect to new plants. That is why the TXU buyout is headed for bankruptcy next month. India doesn’t have gas, and importing it via LNG makes it uneconomic even given the efficiency advantage. Japan has to, because they shut nuclear and the only way to avoid electricity shortages was ‘fast’ deployment of older coal and as much new CCGT as they could buy.
Mueller’s solution about teaching China how to frack for gas is oversimplified. China may have shale gas. It has shale deposits, but whether these can be produced is uncertain. Same Geological folding/faulting problems as California’s Monterey shale. So it is using coal and nuclear, plus experimenting with 4th gen nuclear concepts like LFTR. Bill Gates hopes to build the first TerraPower TWR in China, since the regulatory environment in the US is hopeless at present (his words, not mine).

Which still leaves the question of coal exports on the table. It’s a done deal that domestic demand will decline. If I were a coal miner, or someone else in the coal food chain, I’d be wanting to set things up for shipping mode coal overseas. Of course, the green groups are a step ahead of them, and trying to shut down coal exporting.

This is where this conflict is headed. I’m glad I don’t own real estate in W.Va. IMO, the coal miners are as hosed as the PNW loggers. In 10-20 years Appalachia will be as poor and depressed as Gray’s Harbor, WA.

From 1910 to 1940 global temperature rose at 0.15C/decade and no other cause but COI2 has been found. Despite ever increasing CO2 from 1997 to present, temperature remains constant. Obviously this on/off behavior requires an explanation. I have provided an explanation that no one has refuted. It is that total CO2 content is unimportant. What is important is the proportion of new and hot CO2 in the troposphere. That tends to be a constant. average. This becomes apparent when you compare the specific heat of cold CO2 with the other gases in the atmosphere.

This must be a sobering truth for the mitigation and green crowd. It would drive rational people to start examining seriously options other than mitigation. Nuclear? Solar in deserts? Natural gas? Geoengineering? We need more energy options, not fewer it seems to me.

What a clear example of the stupidity of the 50 years of anti-nuke protesting. It’s causzed nuclear power to be far more expensive than it should be and greatly retarded its development and its share of wolrd electricity generation.

We can thank the ‘progressives’ (mostly) for thsi – i.e. the same irrational, gullible fools who are the CAGW extremists (mostly).

Oh stop your hand-wringing about all the coal the Chinese will burn and pay attention to what carbon dioxide is doing. It is doing nothing – totally derelict in its duty to capture OLR and warm the air. Just off the job set for it by the IPCC. This has been recognized for the last 15 years but unrecognized is the fact that it also goofed off in the eighties and nineties. That is because temperature curves used by IPCC showed that period as a temperature rise when in fact it was another 18 year hiatus or whatever you call a warming pause. Doing research for my book (What Warming? [1]) I recognized that this warming was a fake and said so in the precace to the book. This was ignored for two years but last fall the big three, namely GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, decided to not show it any more and aligned their data with satellites. Satellite record does not show any warming in the eighties and nineties except for the super El Nino of 1998. This raises the number of years with no greenhouse warming from 15 to 33 out of the last 34. The extra year of warming belongs to the super El Nino, also not a greenhouse effect. Anyone can verfy this. The satellite record is Figure 15 in my book if you need it. This means that there has been no greenhouse warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide for the last 34 years – the entire length of the satellite era. It is clear that if greenhouse effect has been absent this long it is not likely that any greenhouse warming has ever existed. To my knowledge it has never been directly observed and the IPCC theory rests on absorption measurements in the laboratory. Ferenc Miskolczi [2] has proposed that this theory is incomplete and does not apply when several greenhouse gases simultaneously absorb in the infrared. In such a case the total absorption is not the sum of individual absorptions but is determined by an optimum absorption window maintained jointly by the the gases present. In the earth atmosphere the gases that count are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Their joint absorption window has an optical thickess of 1.87 in the IR. This corresponds to a transmittance of 15 percent or absorbance of 85 percent. If we now add CO2 to the atmosphere it will start to absorb and the optical thickness will increase. But as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish and rain out until the value of optical thickness is restored to the optimum. Since there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only a small fraction of water vapor is needed to adjust that balance. That of course is the explanation for the existence of the current and past pauses in warming. The two paused warming periods are separated only by the super El Nino of 1998 and its accompanying step warming. That step warming is attributable to the large amount of warm water the super El Nino carried across the ocean and not to the greenhouse effect. The super El Nino itself is the only one known in more than a century. Its step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree in only three years and then stopped. It was formerly subsumed into the fake warming of the eighties and nineties and to see it you had to look at the satellite curve. In the absence the super El Nino the two no-warming periods would fit together end to end from 1979 to the present. As Figure 15 shows they now appear as two horizontal temperature platforms, shifted apart at the turn of the century. Miskolczi came out with his original theory in 2007 but was not accepted by mainstream climate scientists. But by 2010 he had experimental proof [3]. Using NOAA weather balloon observations that go back to 1948 he studied the absorption of carbon dioxide by the atmosphere over time. And discovered that absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This has consequences. First and foremost, it cuts the feet right out from under the greenhouse theory of anthropogenic global warming. All doomsday warming predictions based on the use of the greenhouse effect are likewise invalid. And any laws and regulations passed with the aid of such predictions were passed under false premises and should be voided. Furthermore, since some of these laws led to “mitigation” efforts to curb production of carbon dioxide these mitigation projects must cease. They have no rational reason for existence.

“What Warming” ???. There clearly were temperature increases up to around the year 2000 (earlier season’s, glacier melting, higher average global temperatures, etc.) However, you have done an excellent job in showing that CO2 was not the problem. The warming was simply a side effect of the Clean Air Act, with the cleaner air allowing more sunlight warming of the earth. Further efforts to clean the air (China, India, the EPA, etc.) will likely trigger more warming.

Sorry for being two months late but I think this deserves a clarification.

The theory you refer to in [2] and [3] is based on computer simulations, namely, on clear-sky radiative transfer calculations on average cloudy atmospheric profiles. This means tracking the paths of long-wave photons downwards and upwards, up to 60 km in the stratosphere, as if there were no clouds in the air at all. But in reality in half of the cases globally there ARE clouds in the air, and they block the way of the long-wave photons completely. So this method is invalid, it results in an unphysical radiative structure which is completely useless. The basic problem is that the author knows it, as it is he who supplies the cloudy input data into his clear-sky radiative program. But he tells the reader nothing about this nonsense. He might have said: “I will perform here clear-sky radiative transfer computations on cloudy atmospheric profiles which I know is meaningless, but I am going to do this on purpose, and see what we get.” But no, he lets you, and every non-expert of the field (and probably most of the readers of the not-peer-reviewed journal Energy and Environment are not-radiative-experts) to think this method is fair. He should clarify this before going any further on his theory, or his case is closed.

“Asian countries will face big challenges in securing enough oil over the next two decades, as their additional demand will be equivalent to the current oil output of the Middle East, the Asian Development Bank said Monday.

“Meanwhile, in a development that promises to complicate multilateral climate-change talks, the ADB foresees a ballooning of greenhouse-gas emissions between now and 2035, according to its 543-page “Energy Outlook for Asia and the Pacific.” The bank defines that area to include developing nations in Central, Southeast, South and East Asia as well as the Pacific islands and economically advanced Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.”

There’s probably a bigger agenda behind AGW. Global trade continues to shift jobs and growth to low cost economies away from advanced economies, with no end in sight. Advanced economies to have a chance need to do something to shift the balance.
a. make cheap energy more expensive
b. promote an alternative, expensive technology (nuclear) that the rising economies would have to buy.

China imports cheap coal from Australia for their electricity production – Australia produces electricity the most expensive way; by wind turbines and solar panels. CO2 has nothing to do with the climate; water controls the climate: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/water-vapor-h2o/

““As the lower grade coal comes into the market, further downward pressure on prices will further drive demand,” ”

And this is probably the main reason for policy-makers pushing for the West to use less resources… so that the demand will be lower and hence the price. And when you have a lower price for energy, you can develop your nation faster. And when they develop faster, they’ll equalize faster with our economic level as we spiral down and meet them somewhere below.

And this is one of their goals: To equalize the economies of all nation-states

If petroleum is permanently more than $100 a barrel, it is profitable to make petroleum products from coal by the Fischer-Tropsch process. This isn’t a theoretical possibility, it was done on industrial scale in Germany during WWII and in South Africa – and will be done whenever “peak oil” makes it economically sensible.